During Obama's campaign, we learned that the rich are those making $250k a year. A nice neat definition, but why are they the ones who have to be rich? Why not the ones making $125k or those making $500k? It is an arbitrary and capricious number designed to inflame the masses who make less than that, more than a statement of policy.
I bring this up because the site Left in the West is being restored at least as some level by Rob Kailey of Wulfgar fame, and a commenter JC said the following about the loss of the middle class,
Put that story together with a few others:
* the Chamber of Commerce's promotion of offshoring;
* the rise of China to soon become the world's leading economy, and growing military might to match;
* the Deficit Commission's proposal to raise the retirement age, which will result in middle and low income workers having to work longer, in essence paying for the retirement of healthier and richer persons (reports show that the richest americans live on average 5-7 years longer than the unrich once they reach 65);
* the widening disparity in income between the rich and middle/lower classes;
* the different treatment the rich and powerful politicos get (Bernie Madoff excepted) vs. the unrich and minorities get in our criminal justice system;
* the rise of corporate personhood to a level commensurate with the flesh and blooded citizens and their right to free speech;
* the rise of corporate personhood in the guise of "defense contractors" as our country turns to mercenary corporations to fight out wars and clean up our messes when (Halliburton/Xe et al.) the military is unwilling/unable/unready to do so--the forewarnings of the coming of the "military-industrial complex" have been realized;
* the triumphs of ideology and religion over science;
* and among all this gathering doom, defense spending is on a rocket course upwards, ever building more bases, and expanding our empire;
* ad nauseum...
It truly is twilight in america. And when the fireworks come out, I will be watching them from afar...
The dire warnings of this dark image are sure to make us leap to action and call for - More government! After all, the problem is always going to be solved by government. The Chamber of Commerce promoting "Off shoring"? Well, let's raise the corporate tax rates here at home, and tax their overseas earnings as well. That will certainly keep those corporations at home.
The Deficit Commissions proposal to raise the retirement age comment is concerning to me, because it looks like this person is advocating privatization of Social Security. After all, if it was privatized, the individual contributor would be able to pass on their accumulated savings to their offspring, instead of having them roll over to fund the wealthy who live longer. I am not sure why this comment is here except to make people feel more helpless than they already do.
The widening disparity between the rich and lower classes is going to be helped how? Apparently by government intervention which will only serve to lock in everyone at their station and keep them from advancing. Again, I am curious as to why JC is advocating this system. Could it be that she doesn't want to be bothered by anyone who may become noveau riche?
The rest of her diatribe also seems to be one giant non sequiter. Except for the underlying theme that all of this would just be fine if only the government took over our lives. My favorite is how she fails to capitalize "america" as she talks about the upcoming fireworks.
I feel sorry for someone so young who is so sad about her future. Maybe she needs to go join a Young Americans for Freedom convention and get some hope that by working hard and taking risks, you can avoid be confined to a set spot on the economic continuum.
On the other hand, I kind of get the feeling that she enjoys her misery.